Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

jQuery 3.6.0

blog.jquery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 292 posts

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#201

Post by solraph »

ativzzz wrote: post #121
distrill wrote: post #5

I know jquery is still in use a lot all over the web, but are people still starting new projects with it?

Absolutely. Starting most new projects with something like React/Vue is complete overkill and jquery makes adding small incremental JS functionality to your app a breeze.

I can't speak for React, but I found adding VueJS was perfect for adding JS functionality incrementally to a section of a site. See my other comment on this thread on using it to create a dynamic contact form to an otherwise static site.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#202

Post by kaba0 »

selfmodruntime wrote: post #186
tambourine_man wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm exactly arguing against this Webpack, Typescript, React, etc approach to web development. I'm more productive in PHP + jQuery, a lot due to familiarity, of course, but I'm also a huge believer in a simple stack. If you've 20+ mutually dependent inputs, maybe you need a better UI, not a complex state management framework. If your browser is ultimately executing an untyped crazy dynamic language, is it worth trying…

At Work, we‘re building web applications that need to be accessed by hundreds of editors with thousands of pages. Most of them share an essential bundle of components. Are you telling me a project that complicated can be built using just jquery? Also, what‘s bad about typescript?

Do you need SPA for everything there? Because if server side rendering/logic is “allowed” with only a few interactive bits here and there written in jquery, than it can be absolutely done as that was/is the case a “few” years back.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#203

Post by actuator »

tomc1985 wrote: post #175
megous wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SPAs were perfectly good before with ExtJS and similar, and more easily extensible too.

SPAs were never good, the entire notion of them or shoehorning full apps into a browser is a farce. But, as parent says, that ship has long sailed

Native apps definitely have advantage in some areas.

But web apps give the ability to ship an app to more platforms and not be restricted by app store border control. Spotify had an Ubuntu client which never worked well, but as their web app improved I got almost the same experience as I would have on OS X or Windows web app. This gives equal chance to other platforms and to app developers as well as they don't have to play by rules like 30% cut.

As long as we can ensure web browsers can be kept open on major platforms(the only exception right now is iOS), it gives more freedom and choice to non platform developers. I would be really happy if PWA support in web browsers keeps improving going forward and need for dedicated apps gets eliminated for most things.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#204

Post by 908087 »

tambourine_man wrote: post #165
shaicoleman wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Fun" fact: Outlook today still uses Word to render HTML, which is about as capable as IE3 released in 1996.

It's not that simple. It used to have a more capable renderer, they rolled it back to the Word one (no animated GIFs!) and have since upgraded again. So Outlook 2007-2016 is really crappy, versions before and after that, a bit less so. The lovely world of enterprise software.

Emphasis on the "a bit" part. I had to deal with it for the first time in years recently, and the most recent version is still a nightmare in every way.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#205

Post by Zelphyr »

enraged_camel wrote: post #117
tambourine_man wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do people still use jQuery? Oh yes. Everyday. Still love it. >…Javascript document api via document.querySelector, and document.querySelectorAll The jQuery API is still (and probably aways will be) far superior to the native DOM (terser, composable, more expressive, etc). >…smaller footprint libraries like lodash jQuery is ≈30k gziped and most likely already cached from CDN. >…has fallen out of favor of more compreh…

I used to write a lot of JQuery, and I've switched to Vue three years ago. Occasionally I have to go back and write more JQuery, and it makes my head hurt. edit: why the dowvotes? are we not allowed to share our experiences now?

I know we're not supposed to discuss voting but people downvoting someone simply because that person said something disagreeable, yet still within the rules of Hacker News, is becoming a serious problem in my opinion. I'd like it just fine we get rid of downvotes altogether.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#206

Post by bcrosby95 »

csswizardry wrote: post #152
sshb wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you are still getting less server load and faster response times across the globe, right?

> …and faster response times across the globe, right? Unfortunately not. There is no benefit to leaving your critical files on anyone else’s infrastructure: https://csswizardry.com/2019/05/self-host-your-static-assets...

We used to use google.com for hosting jquery for us. Then when google.com started being blocked by the great firewall our site broke (it was pretty popular in China). It took a while to find out what went wrong, especially with the language barrier.

Back then we decided it's just better to self host. Less things can go wrong.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#207

Post by babypuncher »

enraged_camel wrote: post #117
tambourine_man wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do people still use jQuery? Oh yes. Everyday. Still love it. >…Javascript document api via document.querySelector, and document.querySelectorAll The jQuery API is still (and probably aways will be) far superior to the native DOM (terser, composable, more expressive, etc). >…smaller footprint libraries like lodash jQuery is ≈30k gziped and most likely already cached from CDN. >…has fallen out of favor of more compreh…

I used to write a lot of JQuery, and I've switched to Vue three years ago. Occasionally I have to go back and write more JQuery, and it makes my head hurt. edit: why the dowvotes? are we not allowed to share our experiences now?

Trying to write any kind of complex interactivity with JQuery event handlers is a serious pain in the butt, and it's so hard to go back and read.

I did the same as you; moved on to Vue and haven't looked back. My frontend code is so much cleaner and easier to debug. I've built a large library of components, so often times adding a new page only takes a couple hours re-using those instead of writing a bunch of new JQuery from scratch.

JQuery is great when I need to make (non-contentful) changes to the DOM. But I refuse to use it for managing the state of my app or putting content in UI components.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#208

Post by afavour »

Tenal wrote: post #149
Klonoar wrote: post #122

I think jQuery is amazing, but one thing that I've found over the years is that the real killer for it was CSS animations becoming simpler to use and more widespread in terms of support. The final thing I used to reach for jQuery for was animation support, but that need is by and large gone now. AJAX/JSONP is good there, but to be honest it's not something that needs a wrapper these days. Glad to see the library is s…

CSS animations are a pain-inducing non-starter for thousands of recurring use cases. Example: Using Javascript to SHOW a modal, but then relying applying addClass('animate') using CSS animations to transition that modal (eg: bottom of screen to center, while fading in) are nearly impossible without tons of hackery. The animations do not render. Hence jQuery animation calls.

What you’ve described is actually pretty simple to do with CSS Animations. Just not with CSS Transitions, which is what people usually use.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#209

Post by Tade0 »

tambourine_man wrote: post #162
peterangular wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It all seems so crazy to me, but this ship has long sailed. Nope. And it's why Svelte is something that I've been hard adopting because it looks the closest to old-school JS/CSS/HTML while still bringing some of the same capabilities over that I love from React and VueJS. It also runs without a VDOM or a constantly running event loop - both things are incredibly attractive to me. Although it's not a perfect solutio…

I saw the Svelte presentation a few years ago when it was released and my jaw hit the floor hard. That was some cool radical thinking. I haven't used it beyond playing with a few examples, so I can't really tell for sure if it holds up. Everything looks great on the demos. Unfortunately it hasn't caught on, though it maybe be too early to call.

Definitely too early to call, but it is making waves already:

https://2020.stateofjs.com/en-US/technologies/front-end-fram...

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#210

Post by shortlived »

yawaworht1978 wrote: post #7

JQuery and reading Resig's book and viewing the source code are responsible for lifting me from horrible dev to below average dev:-) I learned to extend the library and understood to create some minimal libraries for myself. It can be very useful to this day and is almost a ballerina when comparing the bloat of other frameworks or library stacks. You never know maybe the come up with something better than react.

> reading Resig's book

I hope you mean the JS ninja one because I just bought it week. Do you remember a particularly impactful section?

Post reply on HN